I think the problem we are having here is a confusion about IANA and I think
I can help resolve it. I believe we all are fine with the text in section 6.
(If we are not, well then the rest of this may be mute). Note this text
does not stop someone from using opaquelocktoken URI.
Julian would like to make sure that the IANA registration of opaquelocktoken
at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes does not go away.
My recommendation is that you remove Apendix C from the draft and that you
change the IANA consideration to say that this specification does not
require any IANA actions.
This will not cause the opaquelocktoken to be removed from IANA. It will not
deprecate it. It will not make it illegal to use. It will not mean that
servers can't use it.
Cullen
On 11/23/05 6:02 PM, "bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu" <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172
>
> lisa@osafoundation.org changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> AssignedTo|lisa@osafoundation.org|julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
> Status|REOPENED |NEW
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From lisa@osafoundation.org 2005-11-23 18:02
> -------
> This bug is only assigned to me because the bug was reopened. Assigning to
> Julian to get confirmation of the consensus if that's at issue.
>
>
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.